Tuesday, May 06, 2008

The Art of Correct Reading


Carol Iannone takes a break from fretting over America's declining academic standards, and complains that biology's standards are too high:

Ben Stein's Expelled is entertaining and informative. Among the bracing clarifications the film provides is that Darwinian evolution is not even necessary for the study of modern biology and medicine; that Darwin and religion are at odds, as Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson has written; that the Nazis did indeed take Darwinian science as inspiration; and that science is even more fanciful about the origins of life than religion could ever be (one anti-Darwinian hypothesizes that organic life may have begun on the backs of crystals).
Iannone once spent some time debating NR's Anthony Dick on evolution. The paragraph above gives you some sense of how little she learned from it.

The claim that evolution (we'll ignore the cunning adjective "Darwinian") "is not even necessary for the study of modern biology and medicine" is remarkable not because it's such a brazen lie, but because Iannone is so careful to designate this imaginary biology-without-evolution as "modern." This is as exquisite a critical distinction as I've seen, and I'm sure it'll help to advance Iannone's reputation as a brave thinker of thoughts about things.

Hitler did indeed take certain useful elements of his era's "Darwinian science" as inspiration, when he wasn't being equally inspired by Goethe, Herder, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Hans Horbiger, Henry Ford, Karl May, Napoleon, occultism, Christianity, mythology, and anything else that appealed to his magpie mind. In Mein Kampf, he sets forth his method quite clearly:
A man who possesses the art of correct reading will, in studying any book, magazine, or pamphlet, instinctively and immediately perceive everything which in his opinion is worth permanently remembering, either because it is suited to his purpose or generally worth knowing....
What's "generally worth knowing," from the standpoint of a power-hungry ideologue, is precisely that which serves the purpose of gaining and maintaining power. It's immaterial whether Jesus died on the cross or not, so long as you can score political points by blaming the Jews for it.

If he were alive today, Hitler might well embrace Intelligent Design; it's by no means incompatible with pseudoscientific racism, it's vague enough to leave room for Odin as well as YHWH, and it's prone to a type of wishful thinking and paranoia that could easily have resonated with his own (if we weren't intended by some supernatural intelligence to discriminate against the Jews, how come they were designed to look Jewish?).

Current scientific thinking on race wouldn't be any more suited to Hitler's purpose than it is to, say, Charles Murray's; as manufactured anti-elitist causes go, ID would probably have been at least as useful as Horbiger's Welteislehre was in its day. This idle speculation aside, it's clear enough that Hitler had little interest in any scientific theory (or historical account, or philosophy, or religious dogma, or art) that he couldn't use to prop up opinions he'd already formed.

Iannone's final point, about science being more "fanciful" than any religion, is both gratuitous and, ironically enough, irreligious. This is much more significant than any of her "attacks" on evolution, the basic facts of which hardly need defending.

Iannone would like you to think that she worships an omnipotent god. At the same time, she wants to treat certain (potentially divine) origins and mechanisms of life as too "fanciful" to have any chance of being correct. But unless she's a Biblical literalist of a type that's really pretty rare in her circles, she's free to view any and every fanciful thing as revelation, from hummingbird beaks to animated hypercubes to crystal-mediated abiogenesis. The Lord works in mysterious ways, or so I've heard.

Her crowd generally avoids this more humble and affirmative approach, though, lest they be reduced to cheering science from the sidelines for the insights it provides into the Great Chain of Being, instead of challenging or usurping whatever authority its relatively objective successes have earned.

In other words, what's being defended here is not God's omnipotence or wisdom, or some other spiritual doctrine, but the drab materialism of political domination, which requires the basso profundo of divine thundering to ground and dignify the mandrake shrieks of authoritarian dimwits like Iannone.

To assume that this is actually a clash between belief and unbelief, or reason and faith, is basically to concede the argument to the Right before it begins (which is, unfortunately, a tactic at which the Left has excelled for as long as I've been paying attention). It's not about religion or science; it's about the need to capture or marginalize opposing sources of authority. The typical left/atheist outrage is already factored into this game, and is in fact one of the main justifications for playing it.

10 comments:

ellroon said...

In other words, what's being defended here is not God's omnipotence or wisdom, or some other spiritual doctrine, but the drab materialism of political domination, which requires the basso profundo of divine thundering to ground and dignify the mandrake shrieks of authoritarian dimwits like Iannone.
In all my life, I have never read such a delicious sentence! Bravissimo!

Anonymous said...

we'll ignore the cunning adjective "Darwinian"

Why should we ignore it and why is it so cunning? Might not quite a few mainstream biologists term themselves 'neo-Lamarckian' not Darwinian? eg:

https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument

Phila said...

Why should we ignore it and why is it so cunning?

It's historically and scientifically incorrect, and it's intended to be prejudicial (e.g., by suggesting that evolution is an ideology that's centered on the personality or philosophy of Charles Darwin, and therefore stands or falls with him).

Might not quite a few mainstream biologists term themselves 'neo-Lamarckian' not Darwinian?

I don't think mainstream biologists term themselves "Darwinian," any more than mainstream physicists term themselves "Newtonian." Do you actually know of any biologists who describe themselves that way?

And Darwin argued in favor of some form of Lamarckian inheritance, if memory serves....

Anonymous said...

(e.g., by suggesting that evolution is an ideology that's centered on the personality or philosophy of Charles Darwin

I'm sorry, but that's not how I read the expression "Darwinian evolution" (a neutral term recommending natural selection and random mutation as the *origin of species*). epigenetics owes nothing to this thesis and neither does modern biochemistry (a field as alien to Darwin's object of study as the behavior of gluons to Newton's.) yes its quite possible to become an MD or a research biochemist and not believe in 'Darwinian evolution' as described in Darwin's most influential work or any of the later ones (what modern biologist believes in pangenesis?)

You are right: physicists wouldn't call themselves 'newtonian' b/c their work doesn't elaborate or hinge on the validity of newtonian relationships (except of course calculus!). Nor does modern biology elaborate on 'darwinian' theories of the origin of species. so her remark is more banality than 'brazen lie'.

Phila said...

I'm sorry, but that's not how I read the expression "Darwinian evolution" (a neutral term recommending natural selection and random mutation as the *origin of species*).

If you live in a culture in which the phrase "Darwinian evolution" is neutral, I envy you. That's really not the situation here in the United States. Iannone's use of the phrase is entirely polemical; it's a standard Creationist tactic, and it's intended to be prejudicial and pejorative. More important, the distinctions you're making are far too fine for the likes of her. In her terms, "Darwinian evolution" is evolution, period.

yes its quite possible to become an MD or a research biochemist and not believe in 'Darwinian evolution' as described in Darwin's most influential work or any of the later ones

No doubt, but that's not what she said. She said that evolution is unnecessary to the study of modern biology, which I think is pretty obviously false. (Whether one comes to accept it as fact after studying it is another matter entirely.)

You have to bear in mind here that PBC's goal is to "improve" the American educational system, and that to Iannone this means getting Intelligent Design into classrooms. The word "study" is very pertinent to her political program, and can't simply be conflated with "belief."

Anonymous said...

In her terms, "Darwinian evolution" is evolution, period.

That's simply untrue. Iannone specifically disputes "the Darwinian hypothesis that life forms evolved from random mutation and natural selection" not the principle of evolution itself. If she were some kind of creationist why bring up DNA and the Cambrian era?

Anonymous said...

That said I can't take issue with your core conclusion (about Ianonne's thesis, not her warped personality.) The idea that randomness is unscientific or irreligious isn't original or especially deep.

But in Ianonne's (actually rather narrow) usage some of her other judgments are correct. Scientists aren't interested in first causes and no one forces you to pledge allegiance to Charles Darwin in medical school. Still so what? Doesn't this contradict her complaint?

Luckily, none of America's science teachers knows thing one about random mutation, otherwise we might be spawning atheists left and right. Praise him for the gift of TV!

I suspect you're giving her way too much credit. Hardly anyone has heard of her or reads her silly blog. She clearly is from a non-science background, caught up in a waste of time non-argument, waving around a piece of trivia she learned on the internet or from her brother-in-law. Of course she's a moron but so is everyone taking the time to argue the opposite of whatever passes for her point.

Phila said...

That's simply untrue. Iannone specifically disputes "the Darwinian hypothesis that life forms evolved from random mutation and natural selection" not the principle of evolution itself.

Here's her take on the Scopes trial: Bryan shrewdly described evolution as a hypothesis - ”millions of guesses strung together” — rather than proven theory. And he knew what was missing: “There is not a scientist in all the world who can trace one single species to any other.”

This quote should make it pretty clear that she makes no real distinction between evolution then and evolution now, to the limited extent that she understands either. Her bedrock problem with evolution isn't that it's "Darwinian," or even that it's "random"; it's that it's materialistic, which is a charge she also raises against science per se. Granted, she's willing to accept a form of evolution that's not materialistic, but it's perverse to claim - as you seem to be doing - that this is not a rejection of evolution as it's commonly understood and taught.

If she were some kind of creationist why bring up DNA and the Cambrian era?

Huh? Plenty of creationists do this...Michael Behe springs to mind. And Iannone is most assuredly "some kind of creationist" (though she's not a Biblical literalist).

You could've saved us both some trouble by familiarizing yourself with the people and the movement you're talking about.

I suspect you're giving her way too much credit. Hardly anyone has heard of her or reads her silly blog.

NRO is a high-profile site by anyone's standards, and she also writes for a number of other influential conservative sites and magazines.

But that hardly matters. As this is a personal blog, all she had to do to be discussed here was come to my attention, as a jumping-off point for what I'd like to believe is a larger argument (and that argument, incidentally, is not for or against "Darwinian evolution" or creationism).

Of course she's a moron but so is everyone taking the time to argue the opposite of whatever passes for her point.

Well, that's life on the Intertubes; if it bores you, perhaps you should get a dog instead.

Kidding aside, I'm not arguing the opposite of Iannone's point. In fact, I'm arguing that doing so plays into her hands. That's why I said that this debate is not about belief and unbelief, or reason and faith, or religion and science.

Not the most daring or original insight, perhaps, but I apparently felt it was worth saying nonetheless.

If you'd like a refund, you have only to ask.

Anonymous said...

Granted, she's willing to accept a form of evolution that's not materialistic

Huh? This post has you claiming she was rejecting all forms of evolution.

you: "In her terms, "Darwinian evolution" is evolution, period."

Period! And yes she rejects Darwinian evolution as ungodly and unscientific, which according to the above takes in all evolution, period! And yes, sorry but she takes special exception to the 'randomness' that Darwinism in her narrow understanding entails (Lord don't make me go back there for the quotes!)

, but it's perverse to claim - as you seem to be doing - that this is not a rejection of evolution as it's commonly understood and taught.

Friend, not everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of cunning pervert.

You seem to be confusing general scientific coursework with a first year philosophy seminar. Biology makes no lofty claims regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, materialism, idealism, or any character of phenomenal reality other than its own narrow sphere. Evolution "as it's commonly taught" doesn't either, nor as a scientific discipline should it.

NRO is a high-profile site by anyone's standards

I'm sure this Darwinism hullabaloo is great for its ad revenue, but you're wrong again. NRO isn't high profile except among a small number of US conservatives and those like yourself that fret over their antics. National Review isn't even sold in most of the English-speaking world. Praise him for NRs small publication run!

I'm sorry I now know about Carol Iannone and hope the memory fades quickly, along with that of Michael Behe and his nine(!!) children. Yes, the "famed" biochemist who apparently is also a creationist and must therefore be vaporised.

Phila said...


Huh? This post has you claiming she was rejecting all forms of evolution.


Again, "evolution," in this post, refers to mechanistic evolution as commonly taught in American schools. That's not "Darwinian" evolution, but evolution based on non-supernatural mechanisms.

The fact that she agrees with W.J. Bryan that "there is not a scientist in all the world who can trace one single species to any other” is very pertinent here, I think.

And yes she rejects Darwinian evolution as ungodly and unscientific, which according to the above takes in all evolution, period!

All evolution that doesn't require a creator. The kind that's taught in American schools, in other words.

It's really not that fucking complicated. You can talk about neo-Lamarckianism 'til the cows come home, but if the process you're describing is mechanistic, Iannone has no use for it. The "randomness" she objects to isn't some unique quality of "Darwinism"; it's inherent (to her) in any scientific theory that excludes, or pays insufficient tribute to, a creator.

Which wouldn't bother me, if it weren't part of an authoritarian political program.

Biology makes no lofty claims regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, materialism, idealism, or any character of phenomenal reality other than its own narrow sphere. Evolution "as it's commonly taught" doesn't either, nor as a scientific discipline should it.

Obviously. That's the whole point. I can't imagine why you'd think I'd disagree with this.

Again, slowly: Iannone rejects evolution as it is currently taught precisely because she believes that it makes "lofty claims regarding the fundamental nature of the universe."

More precisely, she believes that it either makes the wrong lofty claims, or that it (implicitly or explicitly) undercuts the "right" ones, and that this has resulted in "a modernity increasingly deprived of spiritual foundations."

Or so she says, at any rate. My post argues that her real concerns lie elsewhere.

I'm sure this Darwinism hullabaloo is great for its ad revenue, but you're wrong again. NRO isn't high profile except among a small number of US conservatives and those like yourself that fret over their antics.

What an education I'm getting today. "National Review" isn't high profile..."except among a small number of US conservatives," none of whom has any clout with government or industry, nor any proven ability to shape or define public policy.

Sure, its writers write for American newspapers, and appear daily on TV and radio shows, and participate in thinktanks and task forces that have driven foreign and domestic policy into a ditch over the last 25 years, and count powerful legislators among their friends, fans, and colleagues...but no really serious person would dream of fretting over their "antics."

To put it another way, I don't quite agree.

Yes, the "famed" biochemist who apparently is also a creationist and must therefore be vaporised.

Behe can believe and write whatever he likes; there's no need to "vaporise" him. In fact, I tend to think it's good that he's raised the questions he has, despite my belief in his basic dishonesty.

But let's not forget, please, that I only brought him up because you seemed to imply that creationists don't talk about DNA. As it happens, they do, frequently and loudly, whether they have Behe's credentials or not. I could point you to plenty of other examples, but something tells me it'd simply provide more proof that I'm getting too wrapped up in their "antics," and am therefore right for the wrong reasons.

The thing is, I live in America, and I take this stuff personally. That's why I write about American politics, for better or worse.

If that strikes you as provincial or obsessive, so be it, although it's not clear to me why a personal blog on American politics shouldn't discuss things that are posted on NRO. Still, if that's not what you want to read about, there are plenty of other blogs out there for you.